Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Originally Posted by Squatch347

Unrelated, but more in the spirit of the thread. I wouldn't call this hypocritical (since he isn't actually breaking a rule he has established) so much as inconsistent. But the inconsistency is pointed out very cleverly by an economist I enjoy:

Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

Pres. Trump’s push to have Uncle Sam “buy American” is a slap in the face of the many people who voted for him because of his alleged business acumen (“In ‘Buy American’ Push, Trump Is Starting in a Hole,” April 21).

Good business executives ensure that their firms do not incur costs that are unnecessarily high. Well-run businesses do not produce for themselves inputs that they can acquire from others at lower costs. Profitable firms spend shareholders’ money only to create value and never to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs.

And yet Trump is actively trying to force American taxpayers to spend more than is necessary on the provision of government services. This supposedly brilliant businessman fancies that he’ll somehow make us richer by draining more money from our pockets. Such an incompetent chief executive deserves to be fired.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Yeah, I don't get this one. Government isn't a business or a family with a budget. Those are fleeting comparisons upon deeper examination.

I disagreed with Reagan (and every other president since) when he began gutting the buy american provision. If this is true it's something I actually agree with Trump on.

Trump has been trumpeted as some kind of brilliant businessman, I have my doubts and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I think he found out the hard way (hence the missteps) that being in charge of a government is miles away from being in charge of a business - which is probably the closest thing to be an absolute ruler or monarch of old.

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Originally Posted by Squatch347

This is your thread, so I don't want to drag it too far off course. But I'm genuinely curious what rationale you have for the "buy American" strategy.

First of all, I don't agree that buying american means necessarily a higher price. The federal government, especially, is a very large customer and can negotiate good prices....even possibly drive prices down which was the fear when Medicare part D came out.

Second, there are benefits of supporting the home economy many of which are ancillary and other which may not even have a dollar value attached to them - such as making sure human rights aren't violated.

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Originally Posted by Squatch347

This is your thread, so I don't want to drag it too far off course. But I'm genuinely curious what rationale you have for the "buy American" strategy.

It is a double-edged sword for Trump. He is a quasi-populist, but is focusing on the economy. Unfortunately, buying American means paying higher prices for goods which would be a hit to the middle class. However, using the economy as a reference for patriotism and the possibility that, in the short-run, a spike in jobs may occur from higher demand for American made goods could partially offset the negative impact higher prices could have. There is a third alternative here. Trump understands buying American (for the sake of buying American) isn't good in the long-run but is using this as leverage for renegotiating our free trade agreements. If he decreases American demand for imported goods enough, then he can go to the bargaining table with something to offer. Once he re-signs the global agreements, he can stop imploring people and companies to strictly buy American. I think 99% of the crap out of Trump's mouth is generally a ploy to gain some sort of leverage and/or remove the leverage from someone else.

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Originally Posted by CowboyX

First of all, I don't agree that buying american means necessarily a higher price. The federal government, especially, is a very large customer and can negotiate good prices....even possibly drive prices down which was the fear when Medicare part D came out.

I understand that, but both by economic definition and by the argument of the "Buy American" crowd it has to be true that reducing the supply of goods available increases the price.

We are a very large customer regardless of whether we buy from American manufacturers or from imported manufacturers. We could affect the price regardless (see Walmart for a good example of this and their ability to affect price regardless of source).

Likewise, if we could buy American for cheaper than we could buy the import, why aren't we buying American now? And how are we being "out competed" if foreign products are more expensive than US products?

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Second, there are benefits of supporting the home economy many of which are ancillary and other which may not even have a dollar value attached to them - such as making sure human rights aren't violated.

They do have a dollar value attached to them though. That is why "fair trade" coffee is more expensive. And "organic" eggs are more expensive than non-organic eggs.

I'm also not sure why we couldn't ensure such things are true (and pay a corresponding price premium) for foreign goods. We buy "humanely produced X" from certified producers all the time that are imports. Why would only the US have those attributes?

More importantly, do you think the human rights of people in third countries will be improved or worsened by us cutting them off from economic development?

Originally Posted by Ibelsd

...possibility that, in the short-run, a spike in jobs may occur from higher demand for American made goods could partially offset the negative impact higher prices could have.

It isn't the main thrust of your point, so I won't delve to deeply into it, but Trump would likely be mistaken in this hope. There is a lot of economic data that shows these kinds of shifts tend to not create jobs (they end up being repackaging deals more than manufacturing startups, and the majority of the latter are not middle class job creators in the US really anyway).

Originally Posted by Ibelsd

There is a third alternative here. Trump understands buying American (for the sake of buying American) isn't good in the long-run but is using this as leverage for renegotiating our free trade agreements. If he decreases American demand for imported goods enough, then he can go to the bargaining table with something to offer. Once he re-signs the global agreements, he can stop imploring people and companies to strictly buy American. I think 99% of the crap out of Trump's mouth is generally a ploy to gain some sort of leverage and/or remove the leverage from someone else.

Hmm, I think sometimes people give Trump too much credit for his negotiating ability. Every case study I've ever read about the guy has shown he is better at coat tail creation than specific deals. However, this is a pretty plausible theory.

It also fits his relatively sophomoric economic education. He doesn't understand that the US has some of the highest tariffs in the world (if anyone is creating unfair trade scenarios, it's us). More importantly, he hasn't thought through the second or third order effects of his act.

By not buying imported goods he also doesn't create external stores of US dollars, which are used to either invest in the US or buy American goods and services (the demand for US dollars also creates a lower interest rate for US companies). The reason we have a trade deficit is that companies, once they've sold to the US, turn around and invest in US assets...creating jobs.

So whatever small drop in demand our importers see would likewise be dwarfed by a corresponding decrease in US exports and foreign investment. That would provide two drag effects on US growth and further reduce job creation and wealth creation in the US.

But I think you might be right, that he is using it as a vague threat to encourage other countries (whose economic systems are just as, if not more, sophomoric) to come to the table.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Republican Hypocracies

I understand that, but both by economic definition and by the argument of the "Buy American" crowd it has to be true that reducing the supply of goods available increases the price.

We are a very large customer regardless of whether we buy from American manufacturers or from imported manufacturers. We could affect the price regardless (see Walmart for a good example of this and their ability to affect price regardless of source).

Likewise, if we could buy American for cheaper than we could buy the import, why aren't we buying American now? not sureAnd how are we being "out competed" if foreign products are more expensive than US products?

They do have a dollar value attached to them though. That is why "fair trade" coffee is more expensive. And "organic" eggs are more expensive than non-organic eggs.

I'm also not sure why we couldn't ensure such things are true (and pay a corresponding price premium) for foreign goods. We buy "humanely produced X" from certified producers all the time that are imports. Why would only the US have those attributes?

"More than three months after the Senate Intelligence Committee launched its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election — including allegations of collusion by associates of President Trump — the panel has made little progress and is increasingly stymied by partisan divisions that are jeopardizing the future of the inquiry, according to multiple sources involved in the probe.

The committee has yet to issue a single subpoena for documents or interview any key witnesses who are central to the probe, the sources said. It also hasn’t requested potentially crucial evidence — such as the emails, memos and phone records of the Trump campaign — in part because the panel’s chairman, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has so far failed to respond to requests from the panel’s Democrats to sign letters doing so, the sources said.

“The wheels seem to be turning more slowly than the importance of the inquiry would indicate,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 commission and former Watergate prosecutor, one of a number of veteran Washington investigators who have begun to question the lack of movement in the probe."

I'm assuming it is my connection, but the link seems to send me back to Yahoo's home page. Still the reports of a lack of progress are pretty overblown. Since that article was published there have been a slew of updates.

As Sen. James Lankford , a member of the committee, pointed out, Intelligence investigations are classified, thus not much is reported on individual findings. You'll remember we had almost nothing on the 9/11 commission for months before the report due to its scrubbing of classified material.

During a joint press conference, the two ranking members, Sens. Warner and Burr noted: "the committee had made requests to interview 20 individuals and five of those interviews had already been scheduled. "

One of the few truly independent members of the committee, Angus King of Maine also agreed the pace was slow, but specifically rejected that your claim:

"In the long run, we have to produce a report that's credible. If it's not credible, if it's not independent, then the public isn't going to accept it," King said.

The senator said that the probe's staff has investigative experience, despite reports. He admitted, however, that the probe needed prosecutors and hoped to bring them in as the probe continues.

"I think we should bring in some prosecutorial experience, if you will, people who are experts at examining witnesses and getting to the bottom of these kinds of questions," King said.

He acknowledged frustration with the pace of the investigation: "Everybody wants to get in on this, everybody wants an answer. My major concern is we get it right."

Probably the most genuinely neutral reporting sources for politics, Roll Call, noted that the reports of underfunding and understaffing are inaccurate and represent unfamiliarity with how Congress and the Intelligence Community actually work.

A congressional source familiar with the committee’s work noted in particular the reported concerns about the Intelligence panel not having a full time staff for the investigation. The individuals detailed to work on the probe are spending roughly 95 percent of their time working on Russia’s activities in the United States, the source said.

A source said there would be complications getting additional staff members the needed clearances and access from intelligence agencies to documents that had previously only been accessible to the “gang of eight” — the group of top congressional and intelligence committee leaders.

Following the work of the Senate Intelligence panel can be maddening because it conducts its work in such a secretive manner, for obvious national security reasons. But aides on both sides of the aisle said Monday that it was their understanding the bipartisan work was continuing.

No one should be hoping for or expecting a quick result.

A source said the committee has now finished a first round of interviews with analysts from within the intelligence community, a process that will lead the committee staff to speak with additional people from the intelligence community this week.

IE, people are frustrated because the meaningless public facing show hearings haven't happened. But political grandstanding =/= progress.

Finally, in a related hearing, Sally Yates has been scheduled to testify in early May.

Yates’s public appearance will be before the smaller Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism — headed by Sen. Lindsey Graham. The panel has been pushing forward with its investigation largely free from political drama.

Yates will testify with James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence.

Additionally, a pretty intensive process leading to confirmation of Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General specifically in charge of the Russia probe was completed yesterday. This process involves the full senate and required vetting, interviews, and briefings, all of which were slowed because they had to be conducted individually. His appointment was praised pretty universally by Democrats and Republicans, which makes a foot dragging claim relatively moot, unless we are going to call working with Democrats foot dragging now.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Originally Posted by Squatch347

Fewer jobs and a lower quality of life are a benefit? You and Trump have an odd view of progress.

Fewer jobs for whom? Foreign countries?

"According to a report from Yahoo! News, Burr has thus far declined to sign letters requesting e-mails and other records from President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign operation that might (or might not) point toward collusion between campaign officials and Russian operatives. - See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politic...-trump-russia-grinds-forward#sthash.ZybPioaq.dpuf"

Re: Republican Hypocracies

For both them and Americans. It is important to remember what these are import taxes, paid by Americans, not by the company producing the good.

We also need to remember that 57% of all imports into America are materials used in production by other US jobs. We can see a great example of this in President Trump's new import tax on Canadian Lumber. By increasing the cost of the raw good he might (and this is yet to be seen) create 800 logging jobs. The problem is that there are 32 construction workers for every logger. The net result will be a loss of 8,241 construction jobs and an increase of $3600 to new homes, meaning about 30,000 fewer people will be able to afford homes.

1) So by taxing the materials used, you are reducing the number of US jobs available, right?

We also need to understand how goods are traded. When Canada sells lumber in the US it receives US dollars in exchange. It can do a couple of things with those dollars:

a) Buy American goods
b) Invest in American assets or companies
c) Trade them for Canadian dollars

A and B create American jobs, so a reduction in that flow would clearly hurt American employment.

C affects the exchange rate by making American Dollars cheaper in relation to Canadian Dollars, thereby making American exports more attractive and increasing American jobs.

2) By reducing the number of US dollars in foreign exchange you reduce A,B, and/or C, thereby hurting US labor.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Originally Posted by Squatch347

For both them and Americans. It is important to remember what these are import taxes, paid by Americans, not by the company producing the good.

We also need to remember that 57% of all imports into America are materials used in production by other US jobs. We can see a great example of this in President Trump's new import tax on Canadian Lumber. By increasing the cost of the raw good he might (and this is yet to be seen) create 800 logging jobs. The problem is that there are 32 construction workers for every logger. The net result will be a loss of 8,241 construction jobs and an increase of $3600 to new homes, meaning about 30,000 fewer people will be able to afford homes.

I suppose the plan would be to create the 800 logging jobs in the US, so why would the construction jobs be lost?

The 800 new jobs (and all their ancillaries) wouldn't make up for the $3600 per home?

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Ok, what I see is an increase in 800 jobs (and all the ancillaries). How does that weigh out with the increase per home?

At least 800 people can afford to buy a home now, no?

Hmm, let's try to net out all the changes.

1) You are correct that there are an additional 800 jobs (and some ancillaries).

2) We see a decrease of about 8200 jobs in construction (and some ancillaries).

So job wise we are at a net of 7600 jobs lost.

3) By economists' estimates about 30,000 fewer homes are purchased.

4) I would assume the economists included the affect of the 800 additional loggers, but let's presume they didn't and somehow all of those loggers went from not owning a home to now owning a home (which is a pretty big assumption).

We end up with 29,200 fewer homes.

So total net effect is 7600 few jobs and 29,200 fewer jobs, right?

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

It seems that protectionism is being defended as an economic good since it is forcing resources towards an American product which could help some Americans gain employment. However, the excess money spent to create these jobs is money that cannot be spent on other sectors of the economy resulting losses elsewhere. Furthermore, the value of a home due to the higher price of lumber is essentially a form of price fixing where the government comes in and sets a minimum price for the home. This, naturally, reduces the ability of consumers to save money reducing long-term planning and subsequent investments.

Really, one could reasonably ask, why just lumber and why to only a small degree if this is an effective means of creating jobs? Why not demand all houses are made entirely of U.S. made goods and materials if this is such a good thing for the American worker? Obviously, all that glitters is not gold and the ridiculousness of the proposition explains why protectionist policies are, in general, bad policy for the American consumer and the American economy.

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Republican Hypocracies

"WASHINGTON ― One thing the slow-moving probe into President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn shows is the remarkable double standard Republicans maintain when it comes to investigating Hillary Clinton, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee suggested Thursday.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) was expressing frustration with the lack of Republican cooperation in the investigation into the details of the former general, who quit the national security adviser post early this year after it became clear that he never disclosed payments he received from groups funded by Russia.

“The Republicans are not helping us. You’ve got to understand that. They’re not helping. And they could help,” Cummings told reporters on Capitol Hill.

The intelligence committees in the House and Senate are also looking into Flynn and Trump’s Russia ties but have so far shown little progress.

But GOP leaders have not echoed that effort and Chaffetz has not pushed the issue.

Cummings compared such efforts ― or the lack of them ― to the repeated probes of Hillary Clinton.

There were nine investigations of the 2012 Benghazi, Libya attacks, including the partisan Select Committee on Benghazi. They never found any wrongdoing by Clinton, although the select committee uncovered her ill-advised use of a private email system.

Over the course of those probes, the GOP issued numerous subpoenas, going after people down to the level of Clinton’s tech support guy.

“If they spent one thousandth of the time going after Trump ― President Trump ― that they spent with Hillary Clinton, he’d be in big trouble,” Cummings said.

“When Hillary Clinton was up, going through what she was going through, they were subpoenaing ― every other day. They were holding emergency hearings,” Cummings recalled. “All they’ve got to do is use a little bit of that same effort in this regard.”

Clinton repeatedly testified to Congress over the controversies, including one marathon 11-hour session.

Cummings said he’s asked Chaffetz to call Flynn to testify, and Chaffetz refused.

“I think the American people need to hear from Gen. Flynn. Keep in mind, what his attorney said. He said he’s got a story to tell,” Cummings said. “I am interested to know what that story is. And the implication is he has a lot of information that will help the American people and those looking into this get to the bottom of it.”"

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Curious, no mention of Comey's leading of the investigation into the Russia connection at Fox news, yet a mention of a possible successor - a close, personal friend of the the Vice President - but no comment.
__________

Re: Republican Hypocracies

"The New York Public Theater’s production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”— featuring a decidedly Trump-esque version of the doomed Roman statesman — has sparked a mounting outcry: Right-leaning media outlets condemned the portrayal as vile and immoral; Donald Trump Jr. tweeted criticism, questioning whether the work was taxpayer-funded, and corporate donors Delta Air Lines and Bank of America made national headlines when they announced that they would withdraw their financial support from the theater.

“No matter what your political stance may be, the graphic staging of ‘Julius Caesar’ at this summer’s Free Shakespeare in the Park does not reflect Delta Air Lines’ values,” Delta said in tweets Sunday.

But there was no such backlash in 2012, when a collaboration between the Acting Company and the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis — which also received financial backing from Delta — mounted a contemporary remake of “Julius Caesar” in which the title character appeared to reference President Barack Obama. Caesar’s character, of course, is brutally slain in the play.

“Because Caesar is cast as a tall, lanky black man, the Obama inference is a bit too obvious,” wrote MSP Mag of the actor, Bjorn DuPaty. “But it fits, sort of. Like Caesar, Obama rose to power on a tide of public goodwill; like Caesar, there were many in government who doubted Obama’s leadership abilities; and now that Obama’s first term has failed to live up to the messianic hype, there are plenty of people who — for the good of the country, you understand, not their own glory — want to take Obama down.”

The Twin Cities Daily Planet also noted the production’s effort to evoke the Obama era: “By the time we got to the OCCUPY ROME sign and the Faireyesque Caesar posters, I was watching through my fingers with my hands over my face,” reviewer Jay Gabler wrote, referring to Shepard Fairey, the artist who designed the iconic “Hope” Obama campaign posters.

ADVERTISING

Back then, outrage did not ensue; the American Conservative praised the casting choices, calling the production “riveting.” And Delta — which did not immediately respond to a request for comment — maintained its longtime support of the theater.

“Delta has been a generous supporter of the Guthrie Theater for decades and was a season sponsor in 2011-2012 when we co-produced ‘Julius Caesar’ with The Acting Company,” Elizabeth Deacon, associate marketing director at the theater, told The Post by e-mail. Delta continues to be listed on the theater’s website as a corporate sponsor contributing between $100,000-$249,000 annually.

As news of the recent controversy took off across social media, many were swift to point out the stark contrast between the current uproar and the absence of public controversy in 2012:"

"Gingrich himself has in the past voted to impeach a president over such charges. While speaker of the House, Gingrich voted in 1998 to impeach President Bill Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.
Now, with a Republican in power, Gingrich has changed his tune. On Friday he called the investigation into Trump a "witch hunt."

"The left right now is engaged in the Salem witchcraft process of, 'We know somebody's evil, we know somebody's bad. I wonder who we should burn at the stake? Maybe it's you, whoever you are,'" Gingrich said. He encouraged the audience to read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible," saying "that's the mentality of the left right now.""

Re: Republican Hypocracies

"In the letter, a copy of which was made public by the Connecticut secretary of state, the commission head Kris Kobach said that “any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public.”"

I guess that's what you call limiting the big, bloated, intrusive federal government.

Re: Republican Hypocracies

"In the letter, a copy of which was made public by the Connecticut secretary of state, the commission head Kris Kobach said that “any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public.”"

I guess that's what you call limiting the big, bloated, intrusive federal government.

As I have read in your previous posts, you believe in a large, "involved" (for lack of a better term) federal gov't is a good thing, yes?
If so, could you please tell me three things the federal gov't does well?

Re: Republican Hypocracies

Originally Posted by Belthazor

As I have read in your previous posts, you believe in a large, "involved" (for lack of a better term) federal gov't is a good thing, yes?
If so, could you please tell me three things the federal gov't does well?

This is off topic. Perhaps you could start a thread..."The Federal Government Does Everything Wrong". It might get interesting when you research it or just sit back and think about it.